Manned missions into space -- a waste?

[hgc]

I'm a big fan of space exploration and research, but I'm starting to question the value and viability of manned missions.

So much of what we do in space can be accomplished robotically. Is it worth the extra effort to support human life out there? If we were able to devote those same resources to replacing direct human activity with remote controlled or programmed robotic activity, might we reap more benefits? If the end-game is to establish a brighter future for mankind when the Earth becomes too crowded or otherwise unlivable, I say get your head out of the sci-fi clouds and face reality: we've go no other home than the surface of this planet, and that's probably forever.

 

[Larspeart]

A waste? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Imagine right now if we had a HUMAN on mars instead of Spirit. Spirit, after being on Mars for a week, is still on it's little platform, getting commands once every eight hours or so, and has turned a whole foot. Not a lot of progress for a weeks worth of exploration. Now, if we had a human or 5 up there, we would have already done major science at this point. we would be well into soil analysis, area surveys, we'd have dug down several feet (or drilled), done atmosphere readings, and have moved out as far as that crater (and maybe even those hills) that NASA is currently interested in. PLUS, a robot cannot make on-the-spot critical decisions, and cannot make crucial adjustments. I firmly believe that if Beagle2 was a piloted craft, it wouldn't have crashed, because humans can see problems as they develope and adjust/adapt to them. It is what we do best as a species. Adapt.

I love Spirit, and I love what it is doing, and what we are getting back from it, but the science we would have done at this point wold be 10-100fold greater if we had a couple people up there right now instead. Cost more? You bet. More dangerous? Absolutely. But whatever the cost it wold be, it would return to us infinately more data in a single mission. One human team could accomplish more in one 2-week mission then the next FIVE Mars robotic missions NASA has planned.

 

[hgc]

A waste? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Imagine right now if we had a HUMAN on mars instead of Spirit. Spirit, after being on Mars for a week, is still on it's little platform, getting commands once every eight hours or so, and has turned a whole foot.
...
I firmly believe that if Beagle2 was a piloted craft, it wouldn't have crashed, ...

And sending a human would have increased the cost a thousand fold. So what if it takes a week or more to more the Spirit rover to the ground? How much better a sample gatherer is a human than a machine? Would it be worth the difference?

As for Beagle2, for the cost of sending a human once, the Euros can send many, many, many more unmanned missions to Mars.

 

[shecky]

I agree for the near and forseeable future, manned space flight does not seem terribly useful. Unmanned probes are perfectly suited to helping us decide if there's anything worthwhile up there for humans to do.

I'm sure Beagle2 may have had better chances had it been piloted by a human. But by the time that becomes a viability, the overall picture will have changed considerably, with a vehicle considerably more complex and useful than Beagle 2.

 

[Michael Redman]

If your only goal is to collect scientific data, I don't think it is worth it. However, I think there are quite a few other reasons that manned space flight is going to provide important value worth the cost.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

If your only goal is to collect scientific data, I don't think it is worth it. However, I think there are quite a few other reasons that manned space flight is going to provide important value worth the cost.

Robotic missions will just be flash in the pan news stories that people will forget about whereas manned flights (especially one to Mars) might get people excited about exploration which will make it happen faster. A kind of manifest destiny for the solar system.

And I want to live on the moon. I'd go tomorrow if I could.

 

[hgc]

If your only goal is to collect scientific data, I don't think it is worth it. However, I think there are quite a few other reasons that manned space flight is going to provide important value worth the cost.

I agree, in principle, that manned space flights can provide value. I just don't know what those other reasons are, and I certainly don't know that they're worth the cost. Like I said before, we can do a hell of a lot of scientific exploration in space for the same money that will otherwise be used for new manned missions and the ongoing space station.

I bring this up now because of Bush's announcement. Personally I suspect that Bush couldn't give a hairy hoot about space exploration, and he's just trying to be Kennedyesque in an election year.

 

[Larspeart]

No one is going to go into physics or astrospace, or engineering, or astrobiology because of a drone going to Mars.

BUT. . .

You put a man on Mars, and you will see every bright mind in the world going into hard sciences, engineering, or other techoventures. It happened in the 60's, and we got a wealth of advancements and knowledge out of it, PLUS private/public funding went up big-time.

 

[Demigorgon]

Yes it's worth it! Gogogogogoggo!

 

[hgc]

Robotic missions will just be flash in the pan news stories that people will forget about whereas manned flights (especially one to Mars) might get people excited about exploration which will make it happen faster. A kind of manifest destiny for the solar system.

And I want to live on the moon. I'd go tomorrow if I could.

No one is going to go into physics or astrospace, or engineering, or astrobiology because of a drone going to Mars.

BUT. . .

You put a man on Mars, and you will see every bright mind in the world going into hard sciences, engineering, or other techoventures. It happened in the 60's, and we got a wealth of advancements and knowledge out of it, PLUS private/public funding went up big-time.

OK, so manned missions are big news, and inspirational. But look at how this really works. As Neal Armstrong stepped onto the moon, Nixon was slashing NASA's budget and scaling back future efforts.

The cascade of science and technology advances that come from space exploration is undeniable, but what are the added benefits if that exploration is manned? I don't doubt they are real, but again I question if they're worth it.

As for the PR causing the attraction of more, brighter people into science and technology careers, I like the idea, but I'd also like to see the evidence. I wouldn't want to spend the effort based on this reason.

 

[Ignatius]

I think there is some kind of balance that can be reached. Unmanned missions are so much cheaper that I think we can learn more and get more bang for our buck by continuing the (relatively) inexpensive unmanned missions and gradually increasing their distance and scope. At some point, when pretty much every one of these missions is successfull, it makes sense to then send humans to a place like Mars.

It is true that manned missions certainly do more to inspire the public, but only when they work. When people are killed on these missions it sets us back more than it helps.

 

[epepke]

I guess I disagree with just about everybody.

Manned space exploration is valuable because I want to go. If I don't get to go, I want someone to go.

The reason I want to go is that I am a human.

Gorillas feed their community. Jackdaws gather toys. Cats mark their territories. Every creature lives, breathes, eats, eliminates, reproduces, dies.

I'm one of those creatures, but I'm also a human, and we explore. That's what we do. "We choose to do these things, not becuase they are easy, but because they are hard."

I think there's a great deal of danger these days in losing our humanity. When we decide that the only value of science is make some pill to give someone two more years of life watching Friends reruns, or we decide that the only value of space exploration is to fill up a disc with data as cheaply as possible, or we decide that the only value of learning is to get a better job and put more cholesterol on the table, we cut off bits of ourselves and throw them away. At the end of this process, we all may be healthy and long-lived and sane and sensible and comfortable. And we will be apes with cell phones, nothing more.

We will be like Nietzsche's Last Man. We will neither live where it is too hot nor too cold. Work will be regulated, lest it become a burden, and so will leisure, lest it become like work. We will be content. So says the Last Man, and blinks.

I don't know about you all, but I didn't evolve the biggest neocortex in the history of the planet so that I could do that.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

OK, so manned missions are big news, and inspirational. But look at how this really works. As Neal Armstrong stepped onto the moon, Nixon was slashing NASA's budget and scaling back future efforts.

*snip*

As for the PR causing the attraction of more, brighter people into science and technology careers, I like the idea, but I'd also like to see the evidence. I wouldn't want to spend the effort based on this reason.

One problem is that NASA is a part of the government and has a budget that can be raised and lower as is politically expedient. Hopefully in the very near future private oganizations will find it profitable to explore space. We'll be learning things, developing new tech, and making money all at the same time. All this will create jobs and smart people will be attracted to space because they can make $$.

 

[sorgoth]

I guess I disagree with just about everybody.

Manned space exploration is valuable because I want to go. If I don't get to go, I want someone to go.

The reason I want to go is that I am a human.

Gorillas feed their community. Jackdaws gather toys. Cats mark their territories. Every creature lives, breathes, eats, eliminates, reproduces, dies.

I'm one of those creatures, but I'm also a human, and we explore. That's what we do. "We choose to do these things, not becuase they are easy, but because they are hard."

I think there's a great deal of danger these days in losing our humanity. When we decide that the only value of science is make some pill to give someone two more years of life watching Friends reruns, or we decide that the only value of space exploration is to fill up a disc with data as cheaply as possible, or we decide that the only value of learning is to get a better job and put more cholesterol on the table, we cut off bits of ourselves and throw them away. At the end of this process, we all may be healthy and long-lived and sane and sensible and comfortable. And we will be apes with cell phones, nothing more.

We will be like Nietzsche's Last Man. We will neither live where it is too hot nor too cold. Work will be regulated, lest it become a burden, and so will leisure, lest it become like work. We will be content. So says the Last Man, and blinks.

I don't know about you all, but I didn't evolve the biggest neocortex in the history of the planet so that I could do that.

Well, I was originally undecided. But...
You changed my mind with that post. Well written.

 

[hgc]

I guess I disagree with just about everybody.

Manned space exploration is valuable because I want to go. If I don't get to go, I want someone to go.

The reason I want to go is that I am a human.

Gorillas feed their community. Jackdaws gather toys. Cats mark their territories. Every creature lives, breathes, eats, eliminates, reproduces, dies.

I'm one of those creatures, but I'm also a human, and we explore. That's what we do. "We choose to do these things, not becuase they are easy, but because they are hard."

I think there's a great deal of danger these days in losing our humanity. When we decide that the only value of science is make some pill to give someone two more years of life watching Friends reruns, or we decide that the only value of space exploration is to fill up a disc with data as cheaply as possible, or we decide that the only value of learning is to get a better job and put more cholesterol on the table, we cut off bits of ourselves and throw them away. At the end of this process, we all may be healthy and long-lived and sane and sensible and comfortable. And we will be apes with cell phones, nothing more.

We will be like Nietzsche's Last Man. We will neither live where it is too hot nor too cold. Work will be regulated, lest it become a burden, and so will leisure, lest it become like work. We will be content. So says the Last Man, and blinks.

I don't know about you all, but I didn't evolve the biggest neocortex in the history of the planet so that I could do that.

How romantic. I also want to go, but this being a practical matter...

You make it sound like human life is pointless if we can't send humans into space. As if all the inspiring and valuable exploration that's possible from right here on Earth is all used up.

 

[Ignatius]

epepke,

I certainly appreciate the sentiment. I share the same sense of wonder and agree with it being in our very nature to explore and wander. It reminds me of the times I read Carl Sagan and got goosebumps.

According to every NASA official I have heard, this small-step, deliberate, careful way of going about it will get us all there faster. We can take much greater chances and send many, many more missions doing these unmanned flights first as opposed to high-risk, very expensive manned missions where we are much more limited to how much we can try and how far we can travel.

Besides, it is not just a choice between space travel and reruns of Friends. We can watch reruns of Buffy or even brand new episodes of Adult Swim. This is progress.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

How romantic. I also want to go, but this being a practical matter...

You make it sound like human life is pointless if we can't send humans into space. As if all the inspiring and valuable exploration that's possible from right here on Earth is all used up.

Life might be pointless if we don't get into space. I don't think humans can survive just being on one planet. Exploring space doesn't take anything away from continuing to explore the earth. We can and should do both.

 

[hgc]

Life might be pointless if we don't get into space. I don't think humans can survive just being on one planet. Exploring space doesn't take anything away from continuing to explore the earth. We can and should do both.

Ahem. If the habitability of Earth is really threatened, then we'd better devote everything to fixing that problem. We've got zero alternatives on the horizon. None.

 

[epepke]

How romantic. I also want to go, but this being a practical matter...

You make it sound like human life is pointless if we can't send humans into space. As if all the inspiring and valuable exploration that's possible from right here on Earth is all used up.

No, clearly not; I mentioned the value of science and the value of learning as well. There's plenty of stuff to do on Earth; basic physics, sea exploration, archaeology.

But I don't see manned space exploration traded as an--ahem--practical matter to enhance those endeavours either.

Rather, I see space exploration, both manned and unmanned, denigrated as part and parcel of denigrating all those other things as well. Because, of course, anything truly human is "romantic" and to be denigrated, not like the real, practical stuff.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I spent almost four billion years getting this far; I'm not going to turn back now. You do what you like.

 

[Bluegill]

I tend to see it your way, hgc. I think exploration is fantastic, but I think that we get more for our money out of robotic exploration, and that this will become truer and truer as technology advances.

Also Sprach Hexxenhammer:

Robotic missions will just be flash in the pan news stories that people will forget about whereas manned flights (especially one to Mars) might get people excited about exploration which will make it happen faster. A kind of manifest destiny for the solar system.

I can’ speak for other people, but I don’t feel that way about it. I am very, very excited about the unmanned exploration, and each unmanned success story makes me want more.

And said Larspeart

No one is going to go into physics or astrospace, or engineering, or astrobiology because of a drone going to Mars.

I’m not so sure this is the case. I think these drones could easily drive young students into related sciences, just as capably as a manned mission.